| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Lester Zick" |
| Date: |
08 May 2007 11:28:48 AM |
| Object: |
One, Two, Three . . . Many |
One, Two, Three . . . Many
~v~~
For those with difficulty comprehending the notion of aboriginal
transfinite arithmetic one might instead consider the comparably
primitive idea of "many" arithmetic often used by animals and the
cognitively chanllenged where for any finite r and many m m+r=m.
~v~~
.
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
08 May 2007 12:09:37 PM |
|
|
"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:r89143tkovrgfqnheicfrf98chmgktm655@4ax.com...
One, Two, Three . . . Many
~v~~
For those with difficulty comprehending the notion of aboriginal
transfinite arithmetic one might instead consider the comparably
primitive idea of "many" arithmetic often used by animals and the
cognitively chanllenged where for any finite r and many m m+r=m.
~v~~
which animals ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
08 May 2007 12:39:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 May 2007 12:09:37 -0500, "Bill Mays@bilboMaso.ugh"
<nospam@spamless.com> wrote:
"Lester Zick" <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:r89143tkovrgfqnheicfrf98chmgktm655@4ax.com...
One, Two, Three . . . Many
~v~~
For those with difficulty comprehending the notion of aboriginal
transfinite arithmetic one might instead consider the comparably
primitive idea of "many" arithmetic often used by animals and the
cognitively chanllenged where for any finite r and many m m+r=m.
~v~~
which animals ?
Ravens for one are known to count. I imagine chimps do as well. Even
some mathematikers.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?SucMucPaProlij?=" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
08 May 2007 12:58:16 PM |
|
|
which animals ?
Ravens for one are known to count. I imagine chimps do as well. Even
some mathematikers.
~v~~
cats can't count
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
08 May 2007 05:00:20 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:58:16 +0200, SucMucPaProlij <buji@paji.bu>
wrote:
which animals ?
Ravens for one are known to count. I imagine chimps do as well. Even
some mathematikers.
~v~~
cats can't count
Well the last cat I spoke to could. Probably just smarter than the
average mathematiker.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "HMSBeagle" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
08 May 2007 09:22:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:00:20 -0700, Lester Zick
<dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:58:16 +0200, SucMucPaProlij <buji@paji.bu>
wrote:
which animals ?
Ravens for one are known to count. I imagine chimps do as well. Even
some mathematikers.
~v~~
cats can't count
Well the last cat I spoke to could. Probably just smarter than the
average mathematiker.
~v~~
My cat assumes Truth in his axioms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
09 May 2007 02:33:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:22:16 -0400, HMSBeagle <jsbach@andromeda.org>
wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:00:20 -0700, Lester Zick
<dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:58:16 +0200, SucMucPaProlij <buji@paji.bu>
wrote:
which animals ?
Ravens for one are known to count. I imagine chimps do as well. Even
some mathematikers.
~v~~
cats can't count
Well the last cat I spoke to could. Probably just smarter than the
average mathematiker.
~v~~
My cat assumes Truth in his axioms.
Possibly the sole surviving member of an otherwise extinct species
T.S. Eliot neglected to catalog in "Old Possum's Book of Practical
Cats," Felis domestica guesstimatica or the Modern Mathematicat.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David R Tribble" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
08 May 2007 08:44:53 PM |
|
|
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
cats can't count
Lester Zick wrote:
Well the last cat I spoke to could. Probably just smarter than the
average mathematiker.
And above-average mathematicians, too, I'll bet.
Most probably a hep cat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
09 May 2007 12:50:04 PM |
|
|
On 8 May 2007 18:44:53 -0700, David R Tribble <david@tribble.com>
wrote:
SucMucPaProlij wrote:
cats can't count
Lester Zick wrote:
Well the last cat I spoke to could. Probably just smarter than the
average mathematiker.
And above-average mathematicians, too, I'll bet.
Hard to say; cats make more sense.
Most probably a hep cat.
Well it's not that hep cats can't count; it's that they don't count.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
08 May 2007 02:16:03 PM |
|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
One, Two, Three . . . Many
~v~~
For those with difficulty comprehending the notion of aboriginal
transfinite arithmetic
kosher vegetarian bacon cheese burgers, fish bicycles, Arab toilet
paper, Republican reduction of government, Hitlery Ramrod Clinton and
the National Healthcare Crisis, safe guns
one might instead consider the comparably
primitive idea of "many" arithmetic often used by animals and the
cognitively chanllenged where for any finite r and many m m+r=m.
Hey Zick, is your spamming stooopidity transfinite?
Hey Zick, what is a whole bunch times not very much after regauging
and normalization?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
08 May 2007 05:32:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 May 2007 12:16:03 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
One, Two, Three . . . Many
~v~~
For those with difficulty comprehending the notion of aboriginal
transfinite arithmetic
kosher vegetarian bacon cheese burgers, fish bicycles, Arab toilet
paper, Republican reduction of government, Hitlery Ramrod Clinton and
the National Healthcare Crisis, safe guns
A true Al? More likely a truly oxymoronic sophomoric Al.
one might instead consider the comparably
primitive idea of "many" arithmetic often used by animals and the
cognitively chanllenged where for any finite r and many m m+r=m.
Hey Zick, is your spamming stooopidity transfinite?
Well you know, Al, you raise an interesting point here. Not a true
point necessarily however an interesting point whose truth you're
obviously too lazy or stupid to establish. Just once I'd like to see a
pissant empiric like you demonstrate the truth of what you claim
instead of just assuming it. You can't even guess at a mechanical
solution to relativity correctly but it doesn't stop you from beating
your chops about outer space stuff no one cares about irregardless.
Hey Zick, what is a whole bunch times not very much after regauging
and normalization?
46.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
09 May 2007 12:28:17 PM |
|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
one might instead consider the comparably
primitive idea of "many" arithmetic often used by animals and the
cognitively chanllenged
Not to mention the English language, which has a one ... many counting
system in its noun and verb forms.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
09 May 2007 06:40:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 May 2007 18:28:17 +0100, Ben Rudiak-Gould
<br276deleteme@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
one might instead consider the comparably
primitive idea of "many" arithmetic often used by animals and the
cognitively chanllenged
Not to mention the English language, which has a one ... many counting
system in its noun and verb forms.
Having noted which what? That conventional forms of generic language
counting must be false because neomathematical forms of counting are
necessarily true?It might really be interesting if posters could bring
themselves to focus on the subject at hand for a change which is not
well established problems concerning the truth of generic language but
rather problems concerning the truth of vapid modern mathematical
interpretations of scientific problems, a change which one might hope
to anticipate before the second coming of Christ however not by much.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
08 May 2007 11:34:47 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 10:28 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
One, Two, Three . . . Many
~v~~
For those with difficulty comprehending the notion of aboriginal
transfinite arithmetic one might instead consider the comparably
primitive idea of "many" arithmetic often used by animals and the
cognitively chanllenged where for any finite r and many m m+r=m.
~
Then again, one might not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
08 May 2007 12:42:54 PM |
|
|
On 8 May 2007 09:34:47 -0700, Don Stockbauer
<don.stockbauer@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 10:28 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
One, Two, Three . . . Many
~v~~
For those with difficulty comprehending the notion of aboriginal
transfinite arithmetic one might instead consider the comparably
primitive idea of "many" arithmetic often used by animals and the
cognitively chanllenged where for any finite r and many m m+r=m.
~
Then again, one might not.
Can't imagine why not. "Many" has many fewer syllables and for the
verbally challenged is easier to spell.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
08 May 2007 05:30:29 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 11:28 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
One, Two, Three . . . Many
~v~~
For those with difficulty comprehending the notion of aboriginal
transfinite arithmetic one might instead consider the comparably
primitive idea of "many" arithmetic often used by animals and the
cognitively chanllenged where for any finite r and many m m+r=m.
~v~~
Hmm... Chapter 0 of any physics textbook offers a refresher on
scientific notation of numbers, which generally presumes that the
reader knows how to get past 3. Lester, however, appears stuck on
aboriginal transfinite arithmetic. When he gets past that, perhaps he
can move up to scientific notation.
Why else would he post this drivel on sci.physics?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: One, Two, Three . . . Many |
09 May 2007 12:33:19 PM |
|
|
On 8 May 2007 15:30:29 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 8, 11:28 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
One, Two, Three . . . Many
~v~~
For those with difficulty comprehending the notion of aboriginal
transfinite arithmetic one might instead consider the comparably
primitive idea of "many" arithmetic often used by animals and the
PD
cognitively chanllenged where for any finite r and many m m+r=m.
~v~~
Hmm... Chapter 0 of any physics textbook offers a refresher on
scientific notation of numbers, which generally presumes that the
reader knows how to get past 3.
A prerequisite for which in your case, Isis, should be remedial
reading.
Lester, however, appears stuck on
aboriginal transfinite arithmetic. When he gets past that, perhaps he
can move up to scientific notation.
Etymology 101: psychoanalysis - "Psycho" "Anal" "Isis".
Why else would he post this drivel on sci.physics?
My apologies, Isis, I thought you posted on sic.physics.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
